Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast)

Ratković, Tena; Rotar, Dora Zgrabljić

doi:10.5235/17441048.9.2.245

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in some cases it may be unreasonable to apply the substantive law of the forum prorogatum to the issue of capacity. 82 The forum chosen by the parties is often due to its neutrality and efficient dispute resolution and the chosen forum may have a tenuous connection with the actual dispute. In such cases it may be preferable to apply the choice of law rules of the chosen forum to determine the capacity of a party to enter into a choice of court agreement.…”

Section: Formal Validity and Consent In Choice Of Court Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validity of choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation

Ahmed¹

2020

The Future of the Law Of Contract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter will examine the validity of choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the EU's Brussels Ia Regulation. It will be argued that the significant lessons learnt from the jurisprudence on choice of court agreements under the Brussels Ia Regulation and its predecessor instruments should not be ignored. Unlike the CJEU's early and restrictive jurisprudence on the writing requirement, Article 3(c) of the Hague Convention should be broadly interpreted. The independent concept of consent distinct from the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement developed under Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation should also be applied in the context of the Hague Convention. This autonomous and wide concept of consent will reduce the need to rely on the choice of law rule governing the substantive validity of choice of court agreements, which refers to the law of the chosen forum including its private international law rules. It will be observed that the unilateral national choice of law rules of the Member States and Contracting States may act as an impediment to the sound operation of the choice of law rule by creating uncertainty and risking decisional harmony.

show abstract

Section: Formal Validity and Consent In Choice Of Court Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validity of choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation

Ahmed¹

2020

The Future of the Law Of Contract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such structural change was done to provide for more focused application of the general rules regarding the determination of the applicable law. The rules provided in this chapter refer to renvoi, 31 non-unified legal system, 32 determination of the contents of the foreign law, 33 interpretation and application of foreign law, 34 general exemption clause, 35 public policy, 36 overriding mandatory provisions 37 and a special rule regarding characterization. 38 The main principles contained in the provision regarding renvoi in PILA 2007, are also present in Article 7 of the PILA 2020 providing for single renvoi system and containing exclusions in cases when the parties have the right to choose the applicable law.…”

Section: General Provisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Europeanisation of the Macedonian Private International Law – Legal Evolution of a National Private International Law Act

Rumenov

2020

EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new Private International Law Act of the Republic of North Macedonia (hereinafter the PIL Act 2020) has been adopted in 2020. It represents one of the most comprehensive codification of European Union private international law (hereinafter the EU PIL) provisions in national private international law act. The PIL act 2020 implements most of the EU conflict of law rules and EU jurisdictional criteria especially those that have universal application. The most significant characteristics of PILA 2020 are: firstly, the act has limited the exclusive jurisdictional criteria; secondly, it introduced habitual residence as one of the main jurisdictional and conflict of law criteria; and thirdly, the act 'mirrors' the provisions that are present in the EU regulations. Moreover the PILA 2020 has positioned direct link between the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the EU PIL Regulations and the national courts, although N. Macedonia is still a candidate country to the EU. This Europeanisation of the Macedonian PIL has been done for two reasons: first, to modernize the rules in line with the new PIL trends, and secondly to prepare the Macedonian judges for the forthcoming radical change in the PIL when N. Macedonia becomes a full member in the EU. The intention of this article is not to give full detailed analyses of every provision in the new PILA 2020 but rather to provide for general overview of the solutions present in this act, as well to determine the main principles and new tendencies that would define the Macedonian private international law in future.

show abstract

“…11 In the same process, ECJ decided that the nullity of the contract, where the jurisdiction agreement was inserted, should be assessed by the court stipulated for in that agreement. 12 Well, it is this independence of the jurisdiction agreement, regarding the other provisions of the contract, and the prohibition of challenging the validity of that clause based, only, in the contract invalidity, that Article 25, Section 5 establishes. Brussels I bis Regulation, also solved an issue, whose solution was not clear in the previous text, where certain questions aroused.…”

Section: Choice-of-court Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice-of-court Agreements in the E-commerce International Contracts

Gonçalves

2017

MUJLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The choice-of-court agreements are a common practice in the e commerce international contracts. In the European Union, the choice-of-courts agreements find their legal framework in Article 25 of Regulation No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I bis). The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current legal framework, in the European Union, of the jurisdiction agreements in international contracts concluded in e commerce, comparing it to the previous one, and taking into consideration the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ).

show abstract

Choice-of-Court Agreements under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast)

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

The validity of choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation

The validity of choice of court agreements in international commercial contracts under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Brussels Ia Regulation

Europeanisation of the Macedonian Private International Law – Legal Evolution of a National Private International Law Act

Choice-of-court Agreements in the E-commerce International Contracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About